Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28 September

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 September.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Nigel Sheinwald, the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the United Kingdom at the 28 September Council. The main matters dealt with at the Meeting were as follows:
	The list of A points was adopted in full, except items on the Schengen Information System, Sirene, on which one member state maintained a parliamentary scrutiny reserve, and on minimum standards for the security of passports. Common Visa List:
	The Council agreed to a mechanism for deferring the entry into force of a visa exemption for certain third countries. Further discussion would take place in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) and the European Parliament would be reconsulted. This is a measure in respect of which the United Kingdom has not sought to opt in.
	Europol: money laundering:
	Political agreement was reached on extending the Europol Convention to cover all money laundering and the accompanying Council declaration on predicate offences, subject to consideration of the European Parliament's Opinion. This would formally be adopted at the Council's meeting on 30 November.
	Commission Proposal for a draft Council Directive on minimum standards on asylum procedures:
	The Commission presented this proposal as its first response to the call by the Tampere European Council in October 1999 to create a common European asylum system. The proposal set out minimum procedural guarantees to ensure that member states could process cases quickly and fairly at a national level and that secondary movements of asylum seekers were avoided. Common standards and time limits would assist in dismissing inadmissible and unfounded cases. Member states gave a general welcome to the proposal, which was remitted to the Asylum Working Group for further consideration.
	Reception conditions for asylum seekers:
	This was an orientation debate on key points in the Presidency's discussion document. No conclusions were drawn but the Presidency stressed that this was a key priority and it would be seeking to agree conclusions at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in November in order to provide a background to an anticipated legislative proposal from the Commission.
	Council Decision to create a provisional Eurojust Unit:
	Political orientation was reached on key elements of the text, subject to consideration of the European Parliament's opinion, which had not yet been received. The text was remitted to COREPER for resolution of some technical issues and the language regime at the request of one member state. A new Article was agreed which would allow the Commission to be associated fully with the general work of the unit, particularly in relation to the development of the permanent Eurojust and which would also enable the Commission to lend its expertise to cases considered by the unit where these fell within Commission competence. The United Kingdom maintained its parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
	Framework Decision relating to the status of victims in criminal proceedings:
	This text was remitted to COREPER to resolve the outstanding issue on compensation. One member state lifted its scrutiny reserve provided that a recital was included to the effect that the Decision did not imply an obligation to treat victims as parties to criminal proceedings. The United Kingdom maintained its parliamentary scrutiny reservation.
	Commission proposal to create a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters:
	The Commission presented this draft Council Decision, which was aimed at improving and developing existing judicial co-operation arrangements and providing the public with practical information about access to justice in cross-border litigation. The Civil Law Committee would discuss this further.
	Protection of the environment through the criminal law: orientation debate:
	There was general support for the introduction of measures to combat environmental crime, in order to establish a European Union acquis in this area. The Presidency would produce an initiative for a new instrument incorporating the aspects of the 1998 Council of Europe Convention on Environmental Crime which were acceptable to all member states.
	Preparation for the joint JHA/European Council of Finance Ministers (ECOFIN) Council:
	Over lunch, the Council prepared the joint ECOFIN/JHA Council meeting of 17 October on financial crime. The Presidency explained that this would feature a debate on a common and coherent European Union strategy towards more effective co-operation in the financial sector, law enforcement and judicial co-operation.
	Brussels/Regulation:
	The Presidency urged Ministers to pursue this dossier in their capitals as it was a key element of the mutual recognition programme on civil law. The
	Commission advised that it would be issuing modified proposals during the next week of the e-commerce aspects of mutual recognition in light of the European Parliament's Opinion.
	Other items:
	The Council noted a communication from Germany on the need for Community-level action on fighting dogs, calling for a Commission initiative on this matter. The Commission doubted if there was a legal basis for Community action but undertook to examine this in greater detail.
	Mixed Committee with Iceland and Norway:
	The Committee heard progress reports on the draft Common Visa List, which Iceland and Norway would apply, and on the application of the Schengen arrangements to the Nordic countries.

Terrorism Act 2000: Implementation

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they intend to bring the Terrorism Act 2000 into force.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are currently working towards an implementation date for the Terrorism Act 2000 of 19 February 2001. Certain powers required in advance of the Terrorism Act taking effect have already been brought into force by Commencement Orders under section 128 of the Act. On 12 October 2000, provisions relating to United Kingdom-wide and Northern Ireland specific codes of practice were brought into force, paving the way for consultation on those codes. Today further provisions, such as those setting out the procedure for the making of secondary legislation, including the orders to bring the codes of practice into force, have been commenced. The provisions brought into force today also include provision for rules of court dealing with certain procedures under the Act and for the establishment of the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission.

Immigrant Advisers and Service Providers: Regulation

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress the Immigration Service Commissioner has made in establishing the scheme of regulation for immigration advisers and service providers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Copies of the Immigration Services Commissioner's Rules, Code of Standards and Complaints Scheme have now been published on the internet at http:www.oisc.org.uk. A copy of these documents will be placed in the Library.
	The Commissioner has also published guidance to advisers on competencies in relation to the provision of immigration advice or immigration services. The Commissioner will be making an announcement in the near future as to the process for making a case for exemption or an application for registration.

Sentencing Guidelines: Women

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will issue sentencing guidelines in respect of women; and, if so, when.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government has no power to issue sentencing guidelines.
	Powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 empower the Home Secretary to direct the Sentencing Advisory Panel to propose to the Court of Appeal that it issue guidelines for specific offences or categories of offence. This power does not extend to making directions that the Panel should propose guidelines for particular categories of offender.

Custodial Sentences: Policy

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is settled public policy that property offences and non-violent crime generally should not be punished by imprisonment unless there are special or aggravating circumstances.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The sentencing framework now contained in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 sets out the criteria which must be met before it is appropriate for an offender to be imprisoned for a given offence: broadly, the offence (or the offence and one or more offences associated with it) must be so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified for the offence.
	There are a number of property and other non-violent offences for which the maximum available penalty is imprisonment because of the possible seriousness of the worst examples of offending falling within that offence. It is for the courts to use their discretion when deciding whether imprisonment is justified, taking into account all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors relating to the offence and any previous convictions of the offender or failure to respond to previous sentences.
	Additionally, the Government have concluded that there are certain types of persistent offending for which a sentence of imprisonment is invariably necessary. We introduced provisions requiring an automatic minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment for third-time traffickers in Class A drugs and of three years' imprisonment for third-time burglars. In each case, such a sentence must be imposed unless the court is satisfied that there are particular circumstances relating to any of the offences or to the offender which would make it unjust to do so.

Custodial Sentences: Policy

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy concerning mothers with children under three years old who receive custodial sentences.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Mother and Baby Units are provided in four women's prisons. In two of these, mothers may have their babies with them up to the age of nine months. The other two have facilities for babies to remain with their mothers up to the age of 18 months. Currently there are plans to provide additional places for mothers and babies at two existing women's prisons and at two new-built prisons for women. There are no plans at present to extend the age limit of babies remaining with their mothers in prison beyond 18 months. It is proposed to run a small pilot scheme at a mother and baby unit with a flexible age limit up to four years of age. A full feasibility study will be carried out before this pilot can start.

Voters' Rights

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the prevention of a voter from joining the political party which forms the Government of the United Kingdom is compatible with basic human rights.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer to his Question of 16 October 2000, Official Report, col. WA71, and would add that it applies whether or not the political party forms the Government of the United Kingdom.

Millennium Volunteers

Lord Redesdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Millennium Volunteer projects will achieve the two targets set for them in respect of the recruitment of volunteers by the end of this year and next year.

Baroness Blackstone: It is too early to say whether the contracted Millennium Volunteers projects will achieve the end year targets that have been agreed with them for the number of young people taking up Millennium Volunteers opportunities. Seven thousand five hundred have already joined Millennium Volunteers and we expect that number to increase rapidly over the coming months, particularly with the impact of the national radio advertising campaign to encourage young people to get involved, which was announced on 26 October.

Employment and Social Policy Council, 17 October

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy Council meeting on 17 October

Baroness Blackstone: My right honourable friend Tessa Jowell and my honourable friend Alan Johnson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, represented the UK at the Employment and Social Policy Council meeting on 17 October.
	The Commission introduced the Autumn Employment Package, comprising the draft Employment Guidelines for 2001, the draft Joint Employment Report for 2000 and the Commission Recommendation on member states' employment policies. The Council gave its first reactions to the package, which will be discussed again by the Council on 27-28 November.
	The Council reached political agreement on a directive to implement the agreement on working time between the European social partners and the civil aviation sector.
	Outline political agreement was reached on a common position for a directive that will set minimum standards for the selection and use of scaffolding, ladders and ropes.
	The Council reached political agreement on a series of objectives in the fight against poverty and exclusion. These will be forwarded to the December European Council in Nice for approval.
	The Council adopted Conclusions on the structural indicators for employment and social cohesion. These will be included in the annual synthesis report for the Stockholm European Council.
	Political agreement was reached by the Council on the Employment (anti-discrimination) Directive brought forward under Article 13. This establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. All the UK's negotiating objectives were achieved.
	Political agreement was also reached on another proposal brought under Article 13, a Decision to establish an action programme tackling all forms of discrimination.
	The Presidency introduced its summary paper on the current state of play of the negotiations on the proposed directive establishing a national framework for informing and consulting workers. The UK stated its continued opposition to the proposed directive on the grounds that it breached subsidiarity. The Presidency will consider written comments from delegations in preparation for renewed discussion at the Council on 27-28 November.

Sudan: Chemical Weapon Allegations

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider requesting a challenge inspection in Sudan by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate reports and evidence of the manufacture and use of chemical weapons by the National Islamic Front Government of Sudan.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) bans signatory states from the development, production, storage and use of chemical weapons. The UK takes a leading role in implementing the treaty and takes all allegations of non-compliance seriously. We would only consider requesting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to undertake a challenge inspection where this was warranted by the circumstances of an individual case.
	Sudan acceded to the CWC on 24 May 1999 (entry into force being 23 June 1999). Following allegations of the use of Chemical Weapons (CW) in Lainya in southern Sudan in July 1999, 17 environmental samples obtained from the area by Mr Damien Lewis were analysed by DERA, Porton Down for the most likely CW agents and their breakdown products. Although traces of the explosive TNT and its breakdown products were present in eight of the samples, no evidence was found of the CW agents tested for. Low levels of arsenic were measured in 15 of the samples at concentrations well within the expected natural limits for environmental samples. We understand that samples from the same site analysed in both Finland and the United States confirmed the UK analyses. The UK therefore concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations that chemical weapons were used in Sudan. The UK has informed the OPCW and the Sudanese Government of these findings.

Burma

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the statement by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 2 October (H.L. Deb., cols. 1223-1224) that the British Government will "continue to make our concerns known in Security Council discussions" about the Burmese regime "committing systematic atrocities on a daily basis", on what occasions they made representations to the United Nations Security Council during 2000; and whether they will give details of those representations.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government cannot make public the details of confidential discussions with Security Council partners. But we can assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we have made all our Security Council partners aware of our concerns.

Burma

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What new policy initiatives they intend to take to "turn up the international heat on the regime in Burma" and "to make it realise that the international community will not stand idly by while that regime brings a potentially prosperous nation to its knees", as stated by the Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 2 October (H.L. Deb., col. 1224).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Our policy is to press the Burmese regime at every opportunity to enter into substantive dialogue with democratic parties, including ethnic minorities, and to improve their appalling human rights record. We believe continued pressure forces the regime to take note of the international community's concerns, as witnessed by their recent release of the British prisoner, James Mawdsley. We will continue with this policy: forthcoming opportunities include the UN General Assembly resolution, the ILO Governing Body, and the EU-ASEAN ministerial meeting. We also support the work of Razali Ismail in his good offices role as the UN Special Envoy for Burma.

Arms Exports: Licence Criteria

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they have taken to consolidate the United Kingdom's national criteria against which they assess licence applications to export arms and dual-use equipment with those of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Licences to export arms and other goods controlled for strategic reasons are issued by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, acting through the Export Control Organisation of the DTI. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other government departments with an interest, as determined by those departments in line with their own policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.
	In the reply given by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Stephen Timms MP on 28 July 1997, he set out the criteria which would be used in considering advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence, applications for licences to export military equipment and dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user will be the armed forces or internal security forces of the recipient country. As the Minister said then, Her Majesty's Government are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry as part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort, and recognise that defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening collective defence relationships, but believe that arms transfers must be managed responsibly.
	We have since taken a range of measures designed to ensure the highest standards of responsibility in our export control policies. These include the adoption during the UK's Presidency of the EU of a Code of Conduct on Arms Exports; the publication of Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls which are among the most transparent of those of any arms exporting country; the ban on the export of equipment used for torture; the ratification of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel landmines and the passage of the Land Mines Act; and our many efforts to combat illicit trafficking in and destabilising accumulations of small arms.
	Since the Council of the European Union adopted the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports on 8 June 1998, all relevant licence applications have been assessed against the UK's national criteria and those in the Code of Conduct, which represent minimum standards that all member states have agreed to apply. The criteria in the EU Code of Conduct are compatible with those which were announced by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in July 1997. At the same time there is a large degree of overlap between the two. It is clearly in the interests of government departments involved in assessing licence applications, British exporters and other interested parties that the criteria which are used should be set out as clearly and unambiguously as possible.
	With immediate effect, therefore, the following consolidated criteria will be used in considering all individual applications for licences to export goods on the Military List, which forms Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994; advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence; and licence applications for the export of dual-use goods as specified in Annex 1 of Council Decision 94/942/CFSP when there are grounds for believing that the end-user of such goods will be the armed forces or internal security forces or similar entities in the recipient country, or that the goods will be used to produce arms or other goods on the Military List for such end-users. The criteria are based on those in the EU Code of Conduct, incorporating elements from the UK's national criteria where appropriate. As before, they will not be applied mechanistically but on a case-by-case basis, using judgment and common sense. Neither the fact of this consolidation, nor any minor additions or amendments to the wording of the two sets of criteria used before, should be taken to imply any change in policy or in its application.
	An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK's international obligations and commitments, by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, by the risks to regional stability or by other considerations described in these criteria.
	Criterion One
	Respect for the UK's international commitments, in particular sanctions decreed by the UN Security Council and those decreed by the European Community, agreements on non-proliferation and other subjects, as well as other international obligations
	The Government will not issue an export licence if approval would be inconsistent with, inter alia:
	(a) the UK's international obligations and its commitments to enforce UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes, as well as national embargoes observed by the UK and other commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls;
	(b) the UK's international obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention;
	(c) the UK's commitments in the frameworks of the Australia Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Wassenaar Arrangment;
	(d) the Guidelines for Conventional Arms Transfers agreed by the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council, the OSCE Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports;
	(e) the UK's obligations under the Ottawa Convention and the 1998 Land Mines Act;
	(f) the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
	Criterion Two
	The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination
	Having assessed the recipient country's attitude towards relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, the Government will:
	(a) not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression;
	(b) exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU.
	For these purposes, equipment which might be used for internal repression will include, inter alia, equipment where there is evidence of the use of this or similar equipment for internal repression by the proposed end-user, or where there is reason to believe that the equipment will be diverted from its stated end-use or end-user and used for internal repression.
	The nature of the equipment will be considered carefully, particularly if it is intended for internal security purposes. Internal repression includes, inter alia, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment; summary, arbitrary or extra-judicial executions; disappearances; arbitrary detentions; and other major suppression or violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms as set out in relevant international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
	The Government consider that in some cases the use of force by a government within its own borders, for example to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals, is legitimate and does not constitute internal repression, as long as force is used in accordance with the international human rights standards described above.
	Criterion Three
	The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions or armed conflicts
	The Government will not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination.
	Criterion Four
	Preservation of regional peace, security and stability
	The Government will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the intended recipient would use the proposed export aggressively against another country or to assert by force a territorial claim. However a purely theoretical possibility that the items concerned might be used in the future against another state will not of itself lead to a licence being refused.
	When considering these risks, the Government will take into account inter alia:
	(a) the existence or likelihood of armed conflict between the recipient and another country;
	(b) a claim against the territory of a neighbouring country which the recipient has in the past tried or threatened to pursue by means of force;
	(c) whether the equipment would be likely to be used other than for the legitimate national security and defence of the recipient;
	(d) the need not to affect adversely regional stability in any significant way, taking into account the balance of forces between the states of the region concerned, their relative expenditure on defence, the potential for the equipment significantly to enhance the effectiveness of existing capabilities or to improve force projection, and the need not to introduce into the region new capabilities which would be likely to lead to increased tension.
	Criterion Five
	The national security of the UK, of territories whose external relations are the UK's responsibility, and of allies, EU member states and other friendly countries
	The Government will take into account:
	(a) the potential effect of the proposed export on the UK's defence and security interests or on those of other territories and countries as described above, while recognising that this factor cannot affect consideration of the criteria on respect for human rights and on regional peace, security and stability;
	(b) the risk of the goods concerned being used against UK forces or on those of other territories and countries as described above;
	(c) the risk of reverse engineering or unintended technology transfer;
	(d) the need to protect UK military classified information and capabilities.
	Criterion Six
	The behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and respect for international law
	The Government will take into account inter alia the record of the buyer country with regard to:
	(a) its support or encouragement of terrorism and international organised crime;
	(b) its compliance with its international commitments, in particular on the non-use of force, including under international humanitarian law applicable to international and non-international conflicts;
	(c) its commitment to non-proliferation and other areas of arms control and disarmament, in particular the signature, ratification and implementation of relevant arms control and disarmament conventions referred to in sub-para (b) of Criterion One.
	Criterion Seven
	The existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions
	In assessing the impact of the proposed export on the importing country and the risk that exported goods might be diverted to an undesirable end-user, the following will be considered:
	(a) the legitimate defence and domestic security interests of the recipient country, including any involvement in UN or other peace-keeping activity;
	(b) the technical capability of the recipient country to use the equipment;
	(c) the capability of the recipient country to exert effective export controls.
	The Government will pay particular attention to the need to avoid diversion of UK exports to terrorist organisations. Proposed exports of anti-terrorist equipment will be given particularly careful consideration in this context.
	Criterion Eight
	The compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion for armaments of human and economic resources
	The Government will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as United Nations Development Programme, World Bank, IMF and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports, whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.
	The Government will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure, taking into account also any EU or bilateral aid, and its public finances, balance of payments, external debt, economic and social development and any IMF- or World Bank-sponsored economic reform programme.
	Other Factors
	Operative Provision 10 of the EU Code of Conduct specifies that member states may where appropriate also take into account the effect of proposed exports on their economic, social, commercial and industrial interests, but that these factors will not affect the application of the criteria in the Code.
	The Government will thus continue when considering export licence applications to give full weight to the UK's national interest, including:
	(a) the potential effect on the UK's economic, financial and commercial interests, including our long-term interests in having stable, democratic trading partners;
	(b) the potential effect on the UK's relations with the recipient country;
	(c) the potential effect on any collaborative defence production or procurement project with allies or EU partners;
	(d) the protection of the UK's essential strategic industrial base.
	In the application of the above criteria, account will be taken of reliable evidence, including, for example, reporting from diplomatic posts, relevant reports by international bodies, and intelligence and information from open sources and non-governmental organisations.

Sierra Leone

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether British forces in Sierra Leone pursued a shoot to kill policy in recent operations against terrorist forces.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: UK Forces operate under clear cut Rules of Engagement which reflect UK domestic law. They may only resort to the use of lethal force when life is imminently threatened or when involved in an international armed conflict. The UK forces involved in recent operations in Sierra Leone resorted to the use of lethal force only when there was an imminent threat to life and only did so in a manner proportionate to the level of that threat.

MoD: Legal Advisers

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Ministry of Defence is free to employ the legal advisers who act for its French counterparts: and, if not, why not.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence uses the services of the appropriate legal expert for the issue under consideration.

Centre for Defence Medicine

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the Defence Medical Services Centre for Excellence will be functioning; and when the Defence Medical Services Training School will be closed.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Plans for the Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM) are progressing well, with the main Service Level Agreement having been signed in early October. The CDM is due to open in April 2001 but we have already commenced the build-up of the Centre, with a small number of Service medical personnel having now taken up posts there. The CDM will develop progressively, over a period of five to 10 years, to its full strength. It is planned that the functions of the Royal Defence Medical College will transfer to the CDM, where they will be at the heart of the Centre, and that this process will be essentially complete by 2006. There are no plans for the Defence Medical Services' Training Centre at Aldershot to transfer to Birmingham.

Centre for Defence Medicine

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the shortfall of filled posts, listed by specialties, when the Defence Medical Services Centre for Excellence opens.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: There are not expected to be any vacancies in the Centre for Defence Medicine's (CDM) complement when it opens in April 2001.

Royal Army Medical Training Centre Site, Millbank

Lord Vivian: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many organisations have submitted tenders for the Royal Army Medical Training Centre site at Millbank, London; and how many of these organisations have been placed on the short list.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: A total of 18 tenders were received, and a short list of seven were invited to interview. After taking into account a number of aspects of the bids, including risk and compliance with the planning brief, two bidders, both proposing institutional use, were asked to give presentations to Ministers from interested departments to further inform the decision-making process.

Officer Training Corps

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which government department funds the Officer Training Corps.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Ministry of Defence funds the Officer Training Corps.

Officer Training Corps

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What difficulties the Ministry of Defence has experienced in promoting the Officers' Training Corps at this year's Freshers' Fair at Queen's University Belfast.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As the number of applications for promotional stands at the Freshers' Fair at Queen's University last month exceeded the space available, I understand that the organisers decided to give priority to organisations that subscribed at that time to the Students Union. Although the University Officers Training Corps was not therefore given space in the Freshers' Fair Hall, a recruiting stand was erected in the vicinity and members of the UOTC distributed advertising leaflets. I am pleased to report that the number of applicants for the UOTC has exceeded the number of vacancies available.

Army Base Repair Organisation, Sennybridge

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are satisfied with the operation of the Army Base Repair Organisation's workshop at Sennybridge.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: ABRO Sennybridge achieved 98.9 per cent of tasks within the agreed customer turn-round times, against a target of 95 per cent in financial year 1999-2000, and in the year to date achievement is running at 99.8 per cent. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the performance of ABRO Sennybridge. It provides a vital service to Land Command units stationed locally and those units utilising specialist training facilities in the vicinity.

Territorial Army Centre, Horsham

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 29 September (WA 199), what are their current plans with regard to the Territorial Army Centre at Horsham which was to be disposed of as part of the Strategic Defence Review.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Based on current plans we expect to dispose of the Horsham Territorial Army Centre by the end of this year.

Armed Forces Widow's Pensions: Retention on Remarriage

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the changes will be made to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme to introduce pensions for life for Armed Forces attributable widows.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We are very pleased to announce that the amendments to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme have now been approved with an effective date of 31 October 2000. This means that those in receipt of an attributable Armed Forces widow(er)'s pension will keep their pension should they remarry or begin to cohabit on or after this date.

Viagra: Use in Fertility Treatments

Lord Alton of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have carried out into the dangers involved in using the drug Viagra in fertility treatments; what advice they have given to medical practitioners; and what knowledge they have of the use of Viagra in IVF treatments by the Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Medicines Control Agency has not been made aware of any scientific data supporting the use of Viagra in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). It is currently authorised (licensed) for use exclusively in men with erectile dysfunction. It is not authorised for use in women or in relation to IVF procedures. A doctor using Viagra for any medical situation or specific patient that does not fall within the licence (off-lable use), such as IVF in women, takes full responsibility for that particular patient. This includes the occurrence of any unforeseen side effects associated with such use of Viagra.

Smoking in Public Places: Control

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will require all hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation to be regarded as non-smoking except where specifically advertised; and
	Whether they have proposals to require all forms of public transport and related property with public access to be non-smoking

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Government have no plans to make all hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation and all forms of public transport and related property with public access to be non-smoking. Smoking policies are the responsibility of managers and providers of facilities. The Government hope and expect that they, like the licensed hospitality industry, will increase the availability of facilities for non-smokers.
	The Government have reached agreement with representatives of the licensed hospitality trade--pubs, restaurants and hotels--on the need for continuing improvement in the provision of non-smoking facilities over the coming years. The industry has developed a Public Places Charter which will ensure that consumers are better able to choose whether to eat, drink or socialise in smoky atmospheres.
	The Health and Safety Commission's recent announcement that it favours introducing an approved code of practice on passive smoking at work is aimed at protecting the welfare of employees from environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.

Hospice Costs: NHS Contribution

Baroness Jeger: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contributions are made from the National Health Service to hospices; and what proportion this represents of the total cost of the hospice movement, including specialised staff training courses in palliative treatment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The running costs of hospices are currently £215 million. Of this, £65 million is provided by the National Health Service to voluntary hospices. This equates to 30 per cent of the total running costs of voluntary hospices. In addition, the NHS provides a further £34 million for NHS hospice running costs. The Government are committed to providing an additional £50 million for hospices by 2004, as announced in the NHS Cancer Plan published on 27 September. This will bring the total NHS spend on hospices up to £150 million, which will be equal to the amount provided by the voluntary sector. The £50 million investment will be used to end inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to make a more realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.
	In order to ensure that the additional funding is allocated effectively and equitably, we will work with hospices and the NHS to define the core components of palliative care services.
	We do not have information on the amount spent on specialised staff training courses in palliative care. However, most hospices do offer educational programmes and a national charity, Help the Hospices, plays a role in funding and organising training for all professions involved in palliative care.

Manufacturing: Profitability

Lord Shore of Stepney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the recently reported fall in the rate of return of manufacturing companies to 6 per cent, the lowest rate of return since the first quarter of 1993, causes them concern; to what main causes they attribute the fall; and what actions, if any, they intend to take to raise the profitability of manufacturing companies.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We acknowledge the difficulties facing manufacturers, due to the weakness of the euro. But we note that, although low, profitability is above its long-run average and many industries and companies have made substantial productivity improvements. We are assisting manufacturing industry to improve its long-term prospects by providing a stable macro-economic framework and by pursuing policies that help firms to innovate and grow.

Sudan: Precursor Chemical Agents

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they took to ensure that the export to Sudan of the dual-use toxic precursors (triethanolamine and sodium sulphate flakes, which can be used as precursors in the manufacture of mustard gases) would be subject to end-user accountability and would not be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons; to which facilities in Sudan the chemicals were exported; and what was the stated purpose for the export of these chemicals.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The export of precursors of toxic chemicals, such as triethanolamine and sodium sulphide are subject to control by being listed in the Australia Group Chemical Weapons precursor list. [The export licence concerned covered sodium sulphide flakes, not sodium sulphate flakes]. Both chemicals are listed because triethanolamine may be used as a precursor in the manufacture of nitrogen mustard, and sodium sulphide may be used as a precursor in the manufacture of sulphur mustard. However, both chemicals also have many commercial uses.
	All export licence applications are rigorously assessed to determine the risk of the proposed export being misused in contravention of our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, including for risk of diversion or re-export to undesirable end-users. Applications are refused if it is assessed that an unacceptable risk of diversion exists. ECO seeks advice on applications from other departments with an interest as determined by those departments in line with their policy responsibilities. All applications for Standard Individual Export Licences must be accompanied by appropriate end-user undertakings or, if the consignee is a Government body, a copy of the official purchase order or relevant part of the contract. As noted in the 1999 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, we regularly ask overseas posts to conduct checks to confirm the veracity of end-user information. We systematically take into account reliable information from a variety of sources, including reporting from diplomatic posts, international organisations and Non-Government Organisations.
	As regards the facilities in Sudan to which the chemicals were exported and what was the stated purpose for the export of these chemicals, enquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As confidential information is involved, the parties concerned will be asked if they consent to its disclosure, and this may take some time. I will write to my noble friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000: Government Actuary's Report

Baroness Castle of Blackburn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will give an assurance that the Government Actuary's Report under Section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will be published without delay, so that the contents can be taken into account in fixing next year's up-rating of the basic pension.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government Actuary is currently finalising his report under Section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. It will be published when it is completed.

Benefit Disentitlement and Child Poverty

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What countervailing increase in child poverty they have attributed to the effect of parents being disentitled to benefit as a result of refusing to comply with (a) the requirement to name the father under the Child Support Act 1995; (b) the requirement to attend one interview; and (c) other government requirements, and whether they will list those requirements.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The effect on child poverty of the requirement to name the father under the Child Support Act 1995 and the requirement to attend one interview is not available. However, the following information is available.
	Under the Child Support Act 1991, a reduced benefit direction can be imposed on parents with care who refuse without good cause to co-operate with the Child Support Agency in seeking child maintenance. There are currently around 13,000 reduced benefit directions in force.
	From April 2000 work-focused interviews have been mandatory for all benefit claimants of working age who reside in ONE pilot areas. Up to the end of September 2000, 83,480 working age clients made a claim to a benefit other than Jobseeker's Allowance. Of this number, 0.08 per cent failed to take part in the interview.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency: Annual Report and Accounts

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the fourth annual report and accounts for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will be published.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The Scottish Environment Agency has published its fourth annual report and accounts today. The report contains details of the progress made by SEPA during the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, the agency's fourth year of operation. A copy of the annual report and accounts has been placed in the Library.

Chardon LL Maize

Lord Eatwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress is being made on the decision whether to add Chardon LL maize to the National Seeds List.

Baroness Hayman: UK Agriculture Ministers proposed the addition of Chardon LL to the UK National List in March. After objections to the proposal were raised, Mr Alun Alesbury was appointed by Ministers to hear representations in relation to the proposed listing, and a hearing is currently under way.
	The Government have now learned from the French authorities that the data from French trials on varietal distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS), which supported the Chardon application for National Listing in the UK, were based on 1 year's data from accredited breeders' trials and 1 year's data from government-run trials. This is apparently one of the procedures allowed by the French authorities for DUS trials of new maize varieties. The relevant directive (72/180/EEC) requires two years of official trials.
	Ministers are taking urgent legal advice on this issue and the implications of the information for the current hearing. MAFF is seeking further information from the French authorities and consulting the European Commission about the implications for National Listing decisions across the EU.
	Chardon LL will only be added to the UK National List if all the legal requirements have been fully met.

Judicial Appointments Annual Report

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the second Judicial Appointments Annual Report and what information it will contain.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: The Judicial Appointments Annual Report, covering the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, is published today. The report includes comprehensive narrative descriptions and detailed statistics on appointments to the judiciary, Queen's Counsel, Lay Magistrates and General Commissioners of Income Tax. It also includes information on my appointments policies and procedures and recent developments such as the implementation of Sir Leonard Peach's recommendations. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the Internet.

House of Lords: Smoking Policy

Viscount Simon: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Further to his Written Answer on 13 October (WA 59), whether a similar smoking policy to that agreed for Millbank House will be applied to the House of Lords as a whole, to protect peers and staff from the harmful effects of passive smoking as outlined in Chapter 6 of the White Paper Smoking Kills.

Lord Boston of Faversham: There are no plans to extend the Millbank House smoking policy to the rest of the House of Lords. However, as I indicated in my previous Answers to the noble Lord, the sub-committees of the Offices Committee will review the Health and Safety Commission's approved code of practice on passive smoking at work if and when it is issued.